Raped by the media?

Explain to me somebody - why do we insist on not revealing the name and face (identity) of a rape victim?

Because we're concerned that life will be made hell for her, afterwards? That she might be further traumatized by the attention, pity, whatever... or targeted by the accused and his sympathizers? That she might be spared humiliation by her immediate community, our social mores being what they are? That her family might be spared?
Right?

Now, somebody explain to me why a 12 year old rape victim was interviewed by NDTV, barely a day or two after the crime?

The child had been raped twice over, and was made to describe the whole ghastly experience.

The face-image was blurred beyond recognition, true.

But her family members' faces weren't. The local police was interviewed as well. They mentioned the accused - her tuition teacher, and his friend. The village and locality was also mentioned.

If anyone who might know the poor girl watched that program, they would be left in no doubt whatsoever about the victim's identity.

I, for one, would like to know who this reporter was (some guy; I didn't catch his name and I didn't want to watch a re-run of the report) and what gave him the incredible desire to hear it all, and shove a camera in the child's face.

I'd like to know who the programming head was, for this particular program. And the guys who edited it and didn't say a word.

And, I'd like to know - do the bosses at NDTV really approve?

I hope not, because, really, we don't need this kind of report. It is like being subjected to a second kind of rape - a kind of media-rape.

I refuse to believe that my people are that hungry for sensational news. This country does not wish to see her daughters' trauma filmed for broadcast. Spare us.